You keeping saying things like that as if to imply that you'renot speculating about what would or wouldn't have happened.

No one knows what would have happened. What I take issue with is that john galt (and you to a lesser extent...not to mention others) are claiming they DO know "it" was all a Big Lie.

Here's an analogy I think works: We're inside a car traveling 100 MPH towards a thick, cement wall. I suggest hitting the brakes and trying to avoid it. Other occupants take issue with this. One claims there is no cement wall. Another says it's made out of cardboard. Another says that with modern safety equipment, some of us stand a chance of survival. The car hurtles towards the wall as the debate continues. I finally hit the brakes and swerve. We avoid the wall, though in the process we blow a tire and suffer rough stop...causing minor injuries. Afterwards, the debate continues as to what the consequences of not hitting the brakes would have been. Everyone sticks to their previous positions.

In the above scenario, no one knows what would have happened. But from all appearances, we were all going to die. It's no different with TARP. What you're claiming is that we should have just screamed "fuck it!" and slammed into the wall. I reject that.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You got my meaning wrong. I'm not saying that in the free market there wouldn't be an arbitration-like equivalent to Chapter 11.

Fair enough. To me, the "free market" includes access to judicial remedies for dispute resolution, including those arising from bankruptcy - access denied to millions of Americans who were summarily raped "for our own good".

Such institutions and remedies are a proper function of government. I do not advocate anarchy.

Fair enough. To me, the "free market" includes access to judicial remedies for dispute resolution, including those arising from bankruptcy - access denied to millions of Americans who were summarily raped "for our own good".

Such institutions and remedies are a proper function of government. I do not advocate anarchy.

I had addressed his comment on this earlier but you make a very important point here that I think is worth highlighting.

I think it is a mistake to assume free market = anarchy.

While I personally do consider anarchy something worthy of discussion and debate and I'm also a strong advocate of the free market, it would be a gross error to assume these two things are one and the same.

I think you can reasonably say you have a free market and have a handful of government functions that are limited to their proper role (protecting the basic rights of life, liberty of property of its citizens).

I think it's also important to note that "free market" isn't a binary, black and white thing. The US as a whole is, economically speaking, a mixed system of socialism (both corporate and non-corporate), fascism (a.k.a. corporatism, state capitalism) and free market. Some parts of the economy are more or less of each one of these. For example:

- Banking and monetary system are mostly fascist/corporatist. The banking system in general and the The Fed in particular is a government protected cartel. The insurance industries fall into this category too.

- Things like food, clothing, consumer electronics, automobiles, etc. are mostly free-market. But even some of these have a socialist or fascist taint to them, economically and the first two examples have some aspects of free market in them too but are largely dominated by these other economic models.

Finally, the healthcare system is pretty much all fucked up. I'd argue it is mostly socialist with some aspects being free market. Mostly it is a completely muddled mess in which all the bad things are blamed on free-marketism and the government's involvement is typically completely ignored or assumed to be entirely beneficial.

You got my meaning wrong. I'm not saying that in the free market there wouldn't be an arbitration-like equivalent to Chapter 11. I'm saying that it wouldn't be called "Chapter" something, which is its title under the legal code.

As it stands, Chapter 11 is codified in law, which makes it absolutely NOT a "free-market solution".

I see what you're getting at. But there is a difference between free-market capitalists and libertarians.

It could be argued that there is a difference between Capitalism and the free market, too.

The problem is that people often have different meanings for these terms that aren't always readily apparent. For example Michael Moore creates a "documentary" critical of capitalism that refers mostly to crony capitalism and/or corporate socialism. These are things I opposed as a free-market-ist.

Additionally, things are so muddled today that it's often hard to separate the issues.

There you go again. You're begging the question and you don't even realize it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

The problem with your analogy, SDW, is that you believe government intervention = "slamming on the breaks".

History shows that government intervention in just about anything = hitting the accelerator, locking the steering wheel, and unfastening the seat belts.

You guys are really something. You simply will not acknowledge the severity of the situation we found ourselves in and the very real possibility that without intervention, the aforementioned disaster would have taken place. You have no facts to support your theories...just a vague notion that government intervention is "bad." \

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You guys are really something. You simply will not acknowledge the severity of the situation we found ourselves in and the very real possibility that without intervention, the aforementioned disaster would have taken place. You have no facts to support your theories...just a vague notion that government intervention is "bad." \

Well, I'd say it is more than simply a vague notion that government is bad and more about taking advice from known liars with a vested interest in scaring the shit out of people in order to get them to hand over a ton of power and money.

This is a common theme in politics and we've seen in repeatedly in the past several years. Bush did it wrt terrorism. Bush and Obama did it in the fall of 2008 wrt the 2008 financial situation. Obama did it again in January 2009 wrt to the economy in general and then a few months later wrt healthcare. It's happening again now wrt the debt ceiling.

This is a recurring theme and political tactic. It happens in big and small ways. Scare the shit out of people over some thing. Sell them on the idea that handing more power and money over to them (the politicians) is the key to abating this impending disaster. Rinse. Repeat.

In the end though, you're still begging the question.

P.S. There actually was evidence and talk at that time that the "frozen credit markets" line was a line of bullshit. Here. Here.

You guys are really something. You simply will not acknowledge the severity of the situation we found ourselves in and the very real possibility that without intervention, the aforementioned disaster would have taken place. You have no facts to support your theories...just a vague notion that government intervention is "bad." \

Look around you. The disaster is taking place. It's unfolding before our eyes. And it's not in spite of government intervention, but because of it.

This "vague" notion that government intervention is "bad" is well chronicled in historical records.

Well, I'd say it is more than simply a vague notion that government is bad and more about taking advice from known liars with a vested interest in scaring the shit out of people in order to get them to hand over a ton of power and money.

Hold on...who are the "known liars?" What you're asking me to believe is that Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, the CEOs of AIG, Goldman, Lehman, Merrill, Bear, General Electric about 20 major banks were ALL engaged in some kind of conspiracy.

Quote:

This is a common theme in politics and we've seen in repeatedly in the past several years. Bush did it wrt terrorism. Bush and Obama did it in the fall of 2008 wrt the 2008 financial situation. Obama did it again in January 2009 wrt to the economy in general and then a few months later wrt healthcare. It's happening again now wrt the debt ceiling.

This is a recurring theme and political tactic. It happens in big and small ways. Scare the shit out of people over some thing. Sell them on the idea that handing more power and money over to them (the politicians) is the key to abating this impending disaster. Rinse. Repeat.

That's a bit weaselly of you. Do politicians use threats for political ends? Yes. Does that mean those threats don't exist? No. It's not as cut and dried as you're making it out to be.

Quote:

In the end though, you're still begging the question.

P.S. There actually was evidence and talk at that time that the "frozen credit markets" line was a line of bullshit. Here. Here.

That is an incredibly weak argument you're making. "Talk" of bullshit does not equal bullshit..that's first. Secondly, are you really arguing that credit markets were even close to normal? Do you understand what commercial paper is? Do you understand the cascade effect that had already started? Do you really think that Bush, Bernanke and company were able to fool Congress, the media and just about every financial professional in the world?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Look around you. The disaster is taking place. It's unfolding before our eyes. And it's not in spite of government intervention, but because of it.

This "vague" notion that government intervention is "bad" is well chronicled in historical records.

I agree that government intervention is undesirable in general. I disagree we are "in a disaster." We are on the road to disaster, but we are not there yet...nor have we passed the point of no return. I also am not using "disaster" like you are. By disaster, I mean the end of the financial system causing the complete breakdown of society. Granted, if we don't get overall government spending under control, we may get to that point someday. But not in three weeks, or three years. That is what we were facing.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

The Republican charge is a body shot aimed right at the belly of President Barack Obamas re-election effort: He made it worse.

Republicans under GWB expanded government, regulation, and Constitution-trampling intrusions into private affairs. No argument there. But the Democrats under GWB and now BHO have wrought full-bore destruction upon the United States.

Quote:

No, not that White House efforts at boosting the American economy and creating jobs and winning the future were merely inefficient or wasteful, which they certainly were. Even Obama finally seems to understand that. Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected, he joked lamely at a meeting of his jobs council.

About 14 million unemployed, millions more under-employed, and who knows how many millions who've simply stopped looking aren't laughing Mr. President.

Quote:

Rather, that the product of all the administrations stimulating and regulating is an economy thats in significantly worse competitive and productive shape than when Obama took the oath in January 2009. He was dealt a bad hand, to be sure and then proceeded to play it badly.

... Of course, economies in recession will eventually recover even without government action. So the question is whether Obamanomics helped, hurt or was inconsequential.

The centerpiece of Obamas plan to push the car out of the ditch was the trillion-dollar (including interest expense on the borrowed money) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. A recent article in The Weekly Standard determined that it may have cost as much as $278,000 for each job created. But thats generous. Respected Stanford economist John Taylor, perhaps the next chairman of the Federal Reserve, has analyzed the actual results of the ARRA. Not what the White Houses garbage-in, garbage-out models say happened, but what actually happened as gleaned from government statistics. Taylor, simply put, looked at whether consumers actually consumed and whether government actually spent in a way that produced real growth and jobs.

Wait for it...

Quote:

His devastating conclusion:

Indeed, the results are horrifying. The two-year-old recoverys terrible tale of the tape: A 9.1 percent unemployment rate thats probably closer to 16 percent counting the discouraged and underemployed, the worst income growth and weakest GDP growth of any upturn since World War II, a still-weakening housing market. Oh, and a trillion bucks down the tube. Oh, and two-and-a-half years and counting wasted during which time the skills of unemployed workers continue to erode and the careers of younger Americans suffer long-term income damage.

Losing the future.

Next, add in healthcare reform that Medicares chief actuary says will not slow the overall growth of healthcare spending. (Even its Obama administration godfather, Peter Orszag, warns that more drastic measures may ultimately be needed.) And toss in a financial reform plan that the outspoken and independent president of the Kansas City Fed says he cant imagine working. I dont have faith in it all. Indeed, markets continue to treat the biggest banks as if they are still too big to fail.

Lots of good stuff Government is doing for us

Quote:

But wait theres more. Obama created a debt commission that produced a reasonable though imperfect plan to deal with Americas long-term fiscal woes. But he stiffed it and then failed to supply a plan of his own, sowing the seeds for an impending debt ceiling crisis and making an eventual fiscal fix that much harder.

That chapter has yet to be written. But judging from the previews... it's ugly.

Quote:

One more step along the path not taken, along with pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that would have reduced policy and economic uncertainty and unleashed the private sector to invest, expand and create.

Some of us have been saying that for oh, 2 years, 5 months, and 16 days now

Quote:

Elections have results. So do bad policies. Obamas choices on taxing and spending and regulating, sorry to say, seem to have made things worse.

That's a bit weaselly of you. Do politicians use threats for political ends? Yes. Does that mean those threats don't exist? No.

No, but just because they say the threat exists doesn't mean it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

It's not as cut and dried as you're making it out to be.

Nor as you make it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Secondly, are you really arguing that credit markets were even close to normal?

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Do you understand what commercial paper is?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Do you understand the cascade effect that had already started? Do you really think that Bush, Bernanke and company were able to fool Congress, the media and just about every financial professional in the world?

I don't answer loaded questions or respond to straw men.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

But not in three weeks, or three years. That is what we were facing.

And there you go again.

I get it, you're absolutely convinced that the nation faced impending disaster ("speeding toward a brick wall") which could only be averted by strong government action ("slamming on the brakes"). I'm not.

Hold on...who are the "known liars?" What you're asking me to believe is that Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, the CEOs of AIG, Goldman, Lehman, Merrill, Bear, General Electric about 20 major banks were ALL engaged in some kind of conspiracy.

You haven't been paying attention in class SDW. Not at all. Paulson blessed Goldman, who would have run laughing all the way to the bank, had they not already been the bank. Bear was sold for peanuts. Lehman was liquidated. Gone. GE... please.

The players didn't conspire with one another. Those who Paulson chose to win, won. The losers were those who hadn't curried favor with the well-connected. They disappeared. The ultimate loser was the taxpayer, to whom this and all future risk was transferred from here to eternity.

This was very, very recent history. You must have been watching too much American Idol or something. The lesson is really quite simple... follow the money, in this case: from those who have it to those who wasted it.

Quote:

Do you really think that Bush, Bernanke and company were able to fool Congress, the media and just about every financial professional in the world?

The President and Congress bought the big lie along with you. Hey, how could you go wrong.

"The media"... you must be joking.

Bernanke was simply the messenger, who dares not bite the hand that feeds him. What was he supposed to do... admit this is all a sham, throw up his hands and walk away from the job? In that case you may have really seen the scorched Earth you fear. The Fed was and remains completely powerless to have done anything. Congress says give us the money, Treasury says there is none, and the Fed makes it appear. Bush grabs another beer and flicks on the Rangers game. The illusion lives yet another day.

As for "financial professionals" for them, the illusion is their lifeblood. Many economically intelligent people have been deriding this decision since it was conceived. You've been debating (badly) with several of them right here.

Leave it to a Democrat administration to exhume all the horrendously bad characters you thought were long dead and buried:

Quote:

Corzine was first elected to U.S. Senator for New Jersey in 2000, following his 1999 exit from investment banking giant Goldman Sachs after a power struggle with future Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Corzine made an instant $400 million when Goldman Sachs went public in 1999.

"Above the law" Jon Corzine is toxic. Poison. And very, very well-connected. His insane tax-and-spend, soak-the-rich orgy nearly devastated New Jersey. Residents and businesses have been fleeing by the thousands every year. Even his predecessor Jim "I am a gay American" McGreevey was tolerable.

Obama has been courting Wall Street of late, including attending a $35,800-a-plate fundraising dinner in New York City in late June hosted by a committee of bankers, private equity executives and hedge fund managers. Corzine hosted a similar event for Obama at the former Governor’s home this past April.

His Esteemed Royal Highness Corzine spent well over $100 million of his own money on his first two elections (Senate, Gov) plus another $23 million for re-election, a record only recently broken by Meg Whitman. Christie defeated him with a mere $3 million. That's how bad it got - Corzine couldn't even buy his way into office any longer.

You haven't been paying attention in class SDW. Not at all. Paulson blessed Goldman, who would have run laughing all the way to the bank, had they not already been the bank. Bear was sold for peanuts. Lehman was liquidated. Gone. GE... please.

Meaningless, unsupported nonsense based on nothing but your own perceptions. And GE? GE was privately warning that they--an otherwise healthy company--was starting to have trouble funding their day-to-day operations.

Quote:

The players didn't conspire with one another. Those who Paulson chose to win, won. The losers were those who hadn't curried favor with the well-connected. They disappeared. The ultimate loser was the taxpayer, to whom this and all future risk was transferred from here to eternity.

I disagree that he chose a small group to "win." He "chose" some of the biggest banks, some of whom even objected to taking the money at all (see Wells Fargo).

Quote:

This was very, very recent history. You must have been watching too much American Idol or something. The lesson is really quite simple... follow the money, in this case: from those who have it to those who wasted it.

The President and Congress bought the big lie along with you. Hey, how could you go wrong.

"The media"... you must be joking.

Tell me, genius...what sources do you have that I don;t?

Quote:

Bernanke was simply the messenger, who dares not bite the hand that feeds him. What was he supposed to do... admit this is all a sham, throw up his hands and walk away from the job? In that case you may have really seen the scorched Earth you fear. The Fed was and remains completely powerless to have done anything. Congress says give us the money, Treasury says there is none, and the Fed makes it appear. Bush grabs another beer and flicks on the Rangers game. The illusion lives yet another day.

As for "financial professionals" for them, the illusion is their lifeblood. Many economically intelligent people have been deriding this decision since it was conceived. You've been debating (badly) with several of them right here.

More unsupported bullshit. Just spouting off about your own supported view.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I haven't gotten to chime much but SDW, these guys really understand what is going on and you need to listen to them. Half-conservatism doesn't exist. Sorta government solutions still screw up just as bad and on top of it they damage the brand and allow Democrats to go big. There is no such thing as too big to fail. All those actions the government took did not help.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.

I haven't gotten to chime much but SDW, these guys really understand what is going on and you need to listen to them. Half-conservatism doesn't exist. Sorta government solutions still screw up just as bad and on top of it they damage the brand and allow Democrats to go big. There is no such thing as too big to fail. All those actions the government took did not help.

That doesn't even sound like you, trump. As for the rest of it, we're not getting anywhere. Ultimately I disagree on TARP with jazz, MJ and john.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

We’ve added more than 2 million new private sector jobs over the past 16 months, but the recession cost us more than 8 million. And that means that we still have a big hole to fill

Quote:

— from natural disasters, to spikes in gas prices, to state and local budget cuts that have cost tens of thousands of cops and firefighters and teachers their jobs.

Another Obama lie. Unemployment is not low because of the public sector.

Quote:

Let me give you some examples. Right now, there are over a million construction workers out of work after the housing boom went bust, just as a lot of America needs rebuilding. We connect the two by investing in rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our railways and our infrastructure. And we could put back to work right now some of those construction workers that lost their jobs when the housing market went bust. Right now, we can give our entrepreneurs the chance to let their job-creating ideas move to market faster by streamlining our patent process. That’s pending before Congress right now. That should pass.

Jesus Christ...shovel-ready infrastructure again? What about home and business construction? And really...fucking patent reform?

Quote:

Right now, there are a lot of middle-class families who sure could use the security of knowing that the tax cut that I signed in December to help boost the economy and put a thousand dollars in the pockets of American families, that that’s still going to be around next year. That’s a change that we could make right now.

Translation...I want to raise taxes on the rich and take credit for the Bush tax cuts.

Quote:

The sooner we get this done, the sooner that the markets know that the debt limit ceiling will have been raised and that we have a serious plan to deal with our debt and deficit, the sooner that we give our businesses the certainty that they will need in order to make additional investments to grow and hire and will provide more confidence to the rest of the world as well, so that they are committed to investing in America.

The president has made a bipartisan agreement even more difficult by declaring certain spending off-limits to cuts. Mr. Obama's "untouchable" list includes his $1 trillion health-care reform, $128 billion in unspent stimulus funds, education and training outlays, his $53 billion high-speed rail proposal, spending on "green" jobs and student loans, and virtually any structural changes to entitlements except further squeezing payments to doctors, hospitals and health-care professionals.

Mr. Obama has offered no evidence since becoming president that he wants to restrain the upward trajectory of government spending. He does want higher taxes to pay for significantly higher federal spending. But he wants Republicans to deliver the tax increases, since Democrats couldn't pass them last year despite controlling both chambers of Congress.

That doesn't even sound like you, trump. As for the rest of it, we're not getting anywhere. Ultimately I disagree on TARP with jazz, MJ and john.

Perhaps I was phone hacked!

The problem avoiding the particulars of course, is that MJ, Jazzy and John are willing to wipe away the giant government edifice that leads to ever larger problems. You see the results from that edifice and buy into the belief that government must fix the problems they actually caused with ever larger and more massive measures.

A nice quick example of this is health care. People want government to make health care "affordable" when the unaffordable health care stems from......government. You can't have the cause of the problem be the solution to the problem.

Employer provided health care came about because of wage controls imposed by the government during World War II. You don't have an employer provide your auto, home owners insurance, etc. Government controls who can offer insurance, what they must offer, the approved medicines, procedures, who is licensed, etc. They control all the inputs but someone else is responsible for the outputs of course.

This was not originally true with commerce but with massive government sponsored entities, demands to lower lending standards, the Fed Reserve, etc. They have altered all the inputs and as a result are responsible for all the outputs. Folks like yourself declare that they ought to fix it but in reality they ought to be swept away from controlling all these matters. Bailouts amount to paying people off so they will give control and trust back to the government again. Would things initial be worse with certain failures? I'd say yes but would the result become better when people refuse to allow the same mistakes again? Yes. The point is government engages in bad business. Paying off the parties who witness it and going at it again doesn't fix that point.

The problem avoiding the particulars of course, is that MJ, Jazzy and John are willing to wipe away the giant government edifice that leads to ever larger problems. You see the results from that edifice and buy into the belief that government must fix the problems they actually caused with ever larger and more massive measures.

A nice quick example of this is health care. People want government to make health care "affordable" when the unaffordable health care stems from......government. You can't have the cause of the problem be the solution to the problem.

Employer provided health care came about because of wage controls imposed by the government during World War II. You don't have an employer provide your auto, home owners insurance, etc. Government controls who can offer insurance, what they must offer, the approved medicines, procedures, who is licensed, etc. They control all the inputs but someone else is responsible for the outputs of course.

This was not originally true with commerce but with massive government sponsored entities, demands to lower lending standards, the Fed Reserve, etc. They have altered all the inputs and as a result are responsible for all the outputs. Folks like yourself declare that they ought to fix it but in reality they ought to be swept away from controlling all these matters. Bailouts amount to paying people off so they will give control and trust back to the government again. Would things initial be worse with certain failures? I'd say yes but would the result become better when people refuse to allow the same mistakes again? Yes. The point is government engages in bad business. Paying off the parties who witness it and going at it again doesn't fix that point.

Now you're doing what they are doing...expanding the debate to other matters, especially my support of government involvement in general. In reality, I am arguing merely that TARP was necessary given the circumstances. It's not an argument that government needs more involvement. In fact, I am on record many times stating that we need much less government involvement in almost every facet of life. But the facts were what the were: Without TARP, things wouldn't just have been bad, they would have likely been catastrophic. The circumstances were extraordinary. It doesn't matter that government helped cause the problem. The initial crisis had to be addressed. In other words, you conduct the arson investigation after the fire has been put out. You don't stand around while it's burning and decry the fire safety of the building.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.